kallend 2,027 #1 August 16, 2012 They're encrypted.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #2 August 16, 2012 Much the same as the current budget the government operates within. Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #3 August 16, 2012 Quote They're encrypted. I didn't see any from Obama when he ran for president, he did give some close to elction time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #4 August 16, 2012 When do you expect to see a budget from your savior Obama? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #5 August 16, 2012 >When do you expect to see a budget from your savior Obama? Been around for quite a while: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget When do you suppose Ryan and Romney will actually look at what's in their budgets? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #6 August 16, 2012 QuoteWhen do you expect to see a budget from your savior Obama? My savior? Well, personally I would expect to be financially better off under Romney. A 20% cut in my taxes would be nice (although I'd still be paying at a far higher rate than he does). However, he will be a disaster for the middle class in general (and therefore for the country as a whole) which is why I won't support him. And I find his social positions abhorrent. I guess I'm not so self-centered as the average wealthy person or Christian rightie.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #7 August 16, 2012 I guess I'm not so self-centered as the average wealthy person or Christian rightie. OH GOD STOP ITSo much so you got to tell eveyone else what they should think like a good little liberal doesYou and Biden make a great pair"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #8 August 16, 2012 Quote>When do you expect to see a budget from your savior Obama? Been around for quite a while: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget When do you suppose Ryan and Romney will actually look at what's in their budgets? you mean the same budget that the dem's wouldn't vote for? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #9 August 16, 2012 Quote Quote >When do you expect to see a budget from your savior Obama? Been around for quite a while: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget When do you suppose Ryan and Romney will actually look at what's in their budgets? you mean the same budget that the dem's wouldn't vote for? As difficult as it may be to fathom, even the dem's weren't that stupid...Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #10 August 16, 2012 >you mean the same budget that the dem's wouldn't vote for? This is like the climate change debate! "There's no budget!" "Here's the budget." "Oh. But there's no detail in the budget!" "Here's the detail." "Oh, hmm. But - but - no one voted for it! Yeah, that's the ticket." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #11 August 16, 2012 Quote>you mean the same budget that the dem's wouldn't vote for? This is like the climate change debate! "There's no budget!" "Here's the budget." "Oh. But there's no detail in the budget!" "Here's the detail." "Oh, hmm. But - but - no one voted for it! Yeah, that's the ticket." the thread was about Romney's budget and I said that Obama didn't put one out before election. Someone shows us one that is out now and you go off. Maybe we need to wait until he is elected to see Romney's just like Obamas. Maybe we could get someone to even vote on Romney's unlike Obamas that his own party won't vote for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #12 August 16, 2012 >Maybe we need to wait until he is elected to see Romney's just like Obamas. Well, given that Romney isn't even sure what's in his (and Ryan's) budget - maybe he'll look into it after he's elected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #13 August 16, 2012 QuoteHowever, he will be a disaster for the middle class in general (and therefore for the country as a whole) which is why I won't support him. Because more money for the middle class is always a bad thing. Why have the middle class spending money on things when the government knows better how to spend it. QuoteAnd I find his social positions abhorrent That's fine. I'm not fond of his positions. But I find that the current administration's positions and it's actions are different things. Think of Sally Ride's partner, ineligible for benefits because the administration would rather wait for the courts to work it out over the next few terms. QuoteI guess I'm not so self-centered as the average wealthy person or Christian rightie. Um - saying "I'm not so self-centered" is facially self-centered. You get off by letting people know you are a guy who cares more about others than yourself. You are proud of it, and let people know it. What's next? Bragging about your humility? This is a KEY problem with the ideological divide - people refusing to admit what they are. Those saying that the corporations are greedy money grubbers, so they deserve to have their money taken and given to the, um, non-greedy people who want it for themselves. Those saying, "I'm not self-centered. See how great I am?" "I'm a nice and peaceable guy, and I'll beat the shit out of anyone who suggests otherwise." Let's be honest here, John. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #14 August 16, 2012 What's not honest about saying I won't support Romney despite it's being extremely likely that I will benefit (in the short term anyway) from his misguided policies? What's not honest about saying I find his social positions abhorrent? Oh, I forgot, you're a lawyer.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #15 August 16, 2012 Quote What's not honest about saying I won't support Romney despite it's being extremely likely that I will benefit (in the short term anyway) from his misguided policies? What's not honest about saying I find his social positions abhorrent? Oh, I forgot, you're a lawyer. He didn't call you disshonest, he called you self centered Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #16 August 16, 2012 QuoteWhat's not honest about saying I won't support Romney despite it's being extremely likely that I will benefit (in the short term anyway) from his misguided policies? Nothing. QuoteWhat's not honest about saying I find his social positions abhorrent? Nothing. But telling all who read that you are "not so self-centered as" is a really self-centered comment. It's not a comment about others. It's a comment about yourself and a comment that is designed to make you look better than others. What is "not so self-centered" about that? You are making the rather clear inference that you are somehow better than them. That's bragging. And that's self-centered. You personally value that more than the money you'll save. Not me. I'd like to be able to have some extra money to pay off some debts. To support my kids so you don't have to. That's my idea of self-centered-ness. I place less value on other people finding me to be a bad guy because I admit that I care about myself and my family than others than I do on telling the world how much better I am than others. Maybe because I don't think I'm better than others. I just place different values on things than you do. It doesn't make me better or worse. The only thing that makes me feel better about my position is that while I'm self-centered enough to want to be left alone, I am socially conscious enough to want to leave myself and everyone else to leave everyone else alone, too. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #17 August 16, 2012 QuoteQuote He didn't call you disshonest, he called you self centered A self-centered person would vote for the candidate most likely to boost his bottom line. You know, like 90+ percent of Americans these days who sell their vote to the highest bidder. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #18 August 16, 2012 Quote This is a KEY problem with the ideological divide - people refusing to admit what they are. Those saying that the corporations are greedy money grubbers, so they deserve to have their money taken and given to the, um, non-greedy people who want it for themselves. I see a totally different ideological divide. Some (most) people vote for whichever party is promising them the most swag. Others vote for whomever supports their position on a one or a few key issues (religion, gun control, etc). Personally, I'm in the income bracket least likely to benefit from either guy. I assume that either way, a bunch of money is going to be taken from some people (including me) and given to others. I don't really qualify as rich or poor, but if the options are: - - - - - take from the rich and give to the poor, or - - - - - take from the poor and give to the rich I'm strongly in favor of the former. This position is tempered by my social considerations, which I would mostly describe as pro-freedom. Fortunately, the same guys who agree with my general economic stance are also more supportive of individual freedom. Unfortunately neither group really lives up to their billing, but one does seem a little more compassionate and tolerant, so I'll probably go with them. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #19 August 16, 2012 QuoteI see a totally different ideological divide. Some (most) people vote for whichever party is promising them the most swag. Others vote for whomever supports their position on a one or a few key issues (religion, gun control, etc). Personally, I'm in the income bracket least likely to benefit from either guy. I assume that either way, a bunch of money is going to be taken from some people (including me) and given to others. I don't really qualify as rich or poor, but if the options are: - - - - - take from the rich and give to the poor, or - - - - - take from the poor and give to the rich I'm strongly in favor of the former. This position is tempered by my social considerations, which I would mostly describe as pro-freedom. Fortunately, the same guys who agree with my general economic stance are also more supportive of individual freedom. Unfortunately neither group really lives up to their billing, but one does seem a little more compassionate and tolerant, so I'll probably go with them. this is me, except for the last half sentence where I'd emphasize the word "SEEMS" - problem is, good intentions that result in an even worse result means you have to decide what's really important - intentions, or results - and vote accordingly. Unfortunately - a frantic rush to self destruction vs a rather quick jog to self destruction equals a couple pretty crappy choices in philosophy or, vote randomly, save what you can, and just try to weather the storm when it hits. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #20 August 16, 2012 Quote >you mean the same budget that the dem's wouldn't vote for? This is like the climate change debate! "There's no budget!" "Here's the budget." "Oh. But there's no detail in the budget!" "Here's the detail." "Oh, hmm. But - but - no one voted for it! Yeah, that's the ticket." More like: "There's nothing to eat" "Here's a steak" "But that steak is putrid and it's been drug thru the dirt" But..but.. you said there was nothing to eat, here's a steak" "Nobody wants to eat a steak like that, it's got maggots crawling out of it" Well, it is something to eat, you may not like it but it proves you are wrong and I'm right, so I win". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #21 August 16, 2012 Quote Well, personally I would expect to be financially better off under Romney. A 20% cut in my taxes would be nice (although I'd still be paying at a far higher rate than he does). this is why I can't really lose in November. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #22 August 16, 2012 Quote I don't really qualify as rich or poor, but if the options are: - - - - - take from the rich and give to the poor, or - - - - - take from the poor and give to the rich I'm strongly in favor of the former. This is the problem, though, with how the issue is framed. It's being stated that by NOT taking MORE from the rich to give to the poor, that the poor will therefore be paying more because they will have to get less. The rich are already having stuff taken to give to the poor. Or to other rich with more influence.Even our President has campaigned with "asking the rich to pay a little more." It's not "asking" the rich, but "asking" gives them the option to say "no." And it's not a "little" more. It's tens of billions more. And what's the reason? It won't balance the budget. Why is our budget in trouble? (1) Medicare. A system created by saying the following: "Old people. We'll make the youth of today pay for your healthcare now. Youth of today - you'll have the same deal when you get old so long as the old don't live too long and you keep breeding more and more people to pay for it, who must then do the same thing." It hasn't worked out that way. (2) Social Security. Same system as Medicare. (3) Medicaid/welfare. A promise to provide a safety net to the poor and not providing directions to the ladders to get off of it. Those who don't use the safety net must keep it stable. (4) Defense - the use of money to ensure the defense of the United States by ensuring the most amazing offensive warfare capabilities the world has ever seen. Generally intended for the purposes of spending large sums of money on really cool shit that isn't needed. (5) Debt Servicing. Created by saying the following: "People. We'll make the youth of today pay for your shit now. Youth of today - you'll have the same deal when you get old so long as the old don't live too long and you keep breeding more and more people to pay for it, who must then do the same thing." It has worked out exactly that way. The President has budget guidelines created by his own commission. He ignored it because hope and change are great slogans but not politically viable. Even Tea Partiers, in general, don't want their Medicare or Social Security touched, so they don't really want the problem solved, either. It's a big mess. And I, for one, am willing to go the opposite of what we're doing. One more thing... Quote - - - - - take from the rich and give to the poor, or - - - - - take from the poor and give to the rich It's the divisiveness in this comment. There is an unwillingness to say, "We all must be taxed." An unwillingness to say, "This is a problem that we all must solve, and we all must suffer for it." Because everyone is self-centered. Everyone wants somebody else to suffer. Not them. Just like the Tea Partiers. I don't like either side. We all suffer. We all made this shit sandwich. Time for everyone to take their communal bite. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #23 August 16, 2012 QuoteIt's the divisiveness in this comment. There is an unwillingness to say, "We all must be taxed." An unwillingness to say, "This is a problem that we all must solve, and we all must suffer for it." Because everyone is self-centered. Everyone wants somebody else to suffer. Not them. Just like the Tea Partiers. I don't like either side. We all suffer. We all made this shit sandwich. Time for everyone to take their communal bite. You can read here which dz.commers think they should be exempt from taking a bite, or they only want a nibble after the "other" people eat most of the sandwich. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #24 August 16, 2012 Quote (5) Debt Servicing. Created by saying the following: "People. We'll make the youth of today pay for your shit now. Youth of today - you'll have the same deal when you get old so long as the old don't live too long and you keep breeding more and more people to pay for it, who must then do the same thing." It has worked out exactly that way. Yes, young people should be having a lot more sex. (And old people too) Quote It's the divisiveness in this comment. There is an unwillingness to say, "We all must be taxed." An unwillingness to say, "This is a problem that we all must solve, and we all must suffer for it." Because everyone is self-centered. Everyone wants somebody else to suffer. Not them. Just like the Tea Partiers. . Not me, Counsellor. I think we need to be paying more tax. All of us, and especially those that benefited most from the totally misguided Bush era tax cuts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #25 August 16, 2012 >More like: >"There's nothing to eat" >"Here's a steak" "There's no steak" "here's a steak" "Hmm. . . . that's not a steak." "Yes, it is. Here's the receipt from the store." "well, uh . . . that steak is bad." "OK, fine." Next! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
livendive 8 #18 August 16, 2012 Quote This is a KEY problem with the ideological divide - people refusing to admit what they are. Those saying that the corporations are greedy money grubbers, so they deserve to have their money taken and given to the, um, non-greedy people who want it for themselves. I see a totally different ideological divide. Some (most) people vote for whichever party is promising them the most swag. Others vote for whomever supports their position on a one or a few key issues (religion, gun control, etc). Personally, I'm in the income bracket least likely to benefit from either guy. I assume that either way, a bunch of money is going to be taken from some people (including me) and given to others. I don't really qualify as rich or poor, but if the options are: - - - - - take from the rich and give to the poor, or - - - - - take from the poor and give to the rich I'm strongly in favor of the former. This position is tempered by my social considerations, which I would mostly describe as pro-freedom. Fortunately, the same guys who agree with my general economic stance are also more supportive of individual freedom. Unfortunately neither group really lives up to their billing, but one does seem a little more compassionate and tolerant, so I'll probably go with them. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #19 August 16, 2012 QuoteI see a totally different ideological divide. Some (most) people vote for whichever party is promising them the most swag. Others vote for whomever supports their position on a one or a few key issues (religion, gun control, etc). Personally, I'm in the income bracket least likely to benefit from either guy. I assume that either way, a bunch of money is going to be taken from some people (including me) and given to others. I don't really qualify as rich or poor, but if the options are: - - - - - take from the rich and give to the poor, or - - - - - take from the poor and give to the rich I'm strongly in favor of the former. This position is tempered by my social considerations, which I would mostly describe as pro-freedom. Fortunately, the same guys who agree with my general economic stance are also more supportive of individual freedom. Unfortunately neither group really lives up to their billing, but one does seem a little more compassionate and tolerant, so I'll probably go with them. this is me, except for the last half sentence where I'd emphasize the word "SEEMS" - problem is, good intentions that result in an even worse result means you have to decide what's really important - intentions, or results - and vote accordingly. Unfortunately - a frantic rush to self destruction vs a rather quick jog to self destruction equals a couple pretty crappy choices in philosophy or, vote randomly, save what you can, and just try to weather the storm when it hits. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #20 August 16, 2012 Quote >you mean the same budget that the dem's wouldn't vote for? This is like the climate change debate! "There's no budget!" "Here's the budget." "Oh. But there's no detail in the budget!" "Here's the detail." "Oh, hmm. But - but - no one voted for it! Yeah, that's the ticket." More like: "There's nothing to eat" "Here's a steak" "But that steak is putrid and it's been drug thru the dirt" But..but.. you said there was nothing to eat, here's a steak" "Nobody wants to eat a steak like that, it's got maggots crawling out of it" Well, it is something to eat, you may not like it but it proves you are wrong and I'm right, so I win". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #21 August 16, 2012 Quote Well, personally I would expect to be financially better off under Romney. A 20% cut in my taxes would be nice (although I'd still be paying at a far higher rate than he does). this is why I can't really lose in November. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 August 16, 2012 Quote I don't really qualify as rich or poor, but if the options are: - - - - - take from the rich and give to the poor, or - - - - - take from the poor and give to the rich I'm strongly in favor of the former. This is the problem, though, with how the issue is framed. It's being stated that by NOT taking MORE from the rich to give to the poor, that the poor will therefore be paying more because they will have to get less. The rich are already having stuff taken to give to the poor. Or to other rich with more influence.Even our President has campaigned with "asking the rich to pay a little more." It's not "asking" the rich, but "asking" gives them the option to say "no." And it's not a "little" more. It's tens of billions more. And what's the reason? It won't balance the budget. Why is our budget in trouble? (1) Medicare. A system created by saying the following: "Old people. We'll make the youth of today pay for your healthcare now. Youth of today - you'll have the same deal when you get old so long as the old don't live too long and you keep breeding more and more people to pay for it, who must then do the same thing." It hasn't worked out that way. (2) Social Security. Same system as Medicare. (3) Medicaid/welfare. A promise to provide a safety net to the poor and not providing directions to the ladders to get off of it. Those who don't use the safety net must keep it stable. (4) Defense - the use of money to ensure the defense of the United States by ensuring the most amazing offensive warfare capabilities the world has ever seen. Generally intended for the purposes of spending large sums of money on really cool shit that isn't needed. (5) Debt Servicing. Created by saying the following: "People. We'll make the youth of today pay for your shit now. Youth of today - you'll have the same deal when you get old so long as the old don't live too long and you keep breeding more and more people to pay for it, who must then do the same thing." It has worked out exactly that way. The President has budget guidelines created by his own commission. He ignored it because hope and change are great slogans but not politically viable. Even Tea Partiers, in general, don't want their Medicare or Social Security touched, so they don't really want the problem solved, either. It's a big mess. And I, for one, am willing to go the opposite of what we're doing. One more thing... Quote - - - - - take from the rich and give to the poor, or - - - - - take from the poor and give to the rich It's the divisiveness in this comment. There is an unwillingness to say, "We all must be taxed." An unwillingness to say, "This is a problem that we all must solve, and we all must suffer for it." Because everyone is self-centered. Everyone wants somebody else to suffer. Not them. Just like the Tea Partiers. I don't like either side. We all suffer. We all made this shit sandwich. Time for everyone to take their communal bite. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #23 August 16, 2012 QuoteIt's the divisiveness in this comment. There is an unwillingness to say, "We all must be taxed." An unwillingness to say, "This is a problem that we all must solve, and we all must suffer for it." Because everyone is self-centered. Everyone wants somebody else to suffer. Not them. Just like the Tea Partiers. I don't like either side. We all suffer. We all made this shit sandwich. Time for everyone to take their communal bite. You can read here which dz.commers think they should be exempt from taking a bite, or they only want a nibble after the "other" people eat most of the sandwich. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #24 August 16, 2012 Quote (5) Debt Servicing. Created by saying the following: "People. We'll make the youth of today pay for your shit now. Youth of today - you'll have the same deal when you get old so long as the old don't live too long and you keep breeding more and more people to pay for it, who must then do the same thing." It has worked out exactly that way. Yes, young people should be having a lot more sex. (And old people too) Quote It's the divisiveness in this comment. There is an unwillingness to say, "We all must be taxed." An unwillingness to say, "This is a problem that we all must solve, and we all must suffer for it." Because everyone is self-centered. Everyone wants somebody else to suffer. Not them. Just like the Tea Partiers. . Not me, Counsellor. I think we need to be paying more tax. All of us, and especially those that benefited most from the totally misguided Bush era tax cuts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #25 August 16, 2012 >More like: >"There's nothing to eat" >"Here's a steak" "There's no steak" "here's a steak" "Hmm. . . . that's not a steak." "Yes, it is. Here's the receipt from the store." "well, uh . . . that steak is bad." "OK, fine." Next! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
